bout de papier, Vol. 28, No. 1 (2014) — Spring 2014 // Printemps 2014, p. 3
You Missed the Point — ouphhh!
“Your editorial hits on a number of topics that are highlights of many discussions among young FS: (1) the ‘real’ reasons for resolving the strike; (2) the manner in which Rosenberg left the Department (and his role/effectiveness in the Department prior to that); (3) the fact that notwithstanding that FS have continued to give loyal, expert, well-reasoned advice, no one in authority seems to care (it sometimes seems to form the basis for taking the complete opposite action); and (4) the fact that government scientists have been muzzled, the impact that has on our ability to formulate policy, and what that bodes for our own futures.
However, I would say that the largest worry of the ‘under 35 set’ is that we are seeing a systemic change among middle managers. When we joined 4—5 years ago, our managers would still push ideas up; now it seems that they are pushing ideas down. Instead of continuing to send up memos setting out true recommendations from the Department, we see Directors and DGs trying to suss out what it is that MINA or o/MINA wants to hear, and then telling us to draft memos and other recommendations accordingly. Of course this is not true of all managers, but what we have seen is unacceptable, and it seems as though the ceiling we are pushing against in trying to get ideas and programs approved is dropping lower and lower.
I am reducing to its core hundreds of conversations over recent years — and it isn’t just the ‘over 35 set’ that hope for better, that is everyone’s hope. I wouldn’t attribute it to an age group or family situation necessarily, but it seems that a certain level of management has ceased to represent the Department upwards for fear of the effects on their careers. It’s understandable in many ways, given the Minister’s very public disciplining of senior Department officials for daring to ‘speak truth to power.’ If ADMs can be punished for giving ‘loyal and fearless’ advice, what’s a Director or DG to do?
When a lot of us first joined and saw by 2010 (or so) the direction the government was going, we told each other to hang in there, that we would need quality officers in the Department once the regime changed. Now, however, we are being crushed to such an extent that many of us don’t think we’ll last until such a change. It’s truly unfortunate, and it comes up during every conversation I’ve had with FS in the past few years that is longer than a few minutes. Many of us agree that without the strong relationships formed among our starting cohort, we would already be gone, since it is truly the only support system we have.
Which brings me to the comment about ‘what officers under 35? We haven’t recruited in four years; we haven’t seen a promotion in years!’ The last and second-to-last recruitments combined probably number at least 150, of which I only know of less than 10 who are over 35. So we’re there! The lack of promotion opportunities within the Department also drives some discussions of departure.”
Ces réactions sont fascinantes à maints égards. Premièrement, le vocabulaire est déconcertant : « hâte », « tough times », « unacceptable », « fear », « disciplining… for daring to speak ‘truth to power’ », et espoir d’un « régime change ». Parlent-ils de la Russie de Poutine? de la Turquie d’Erdogan? Non, il s’agit de notre propre grand nord « fort et fier ». Deuxièmement, qui s’exprime ainsi, des vieillards récalcitrants qui s’empiffrent de canapés? Non, les commentaires ci-dessus viennent des plus jeunes. En quoi nous sommes-nous trompés dans le dernier éditorial? Ce respect professionnel et cette éthique du travail sont de plus en plus compromis entre les mains des cadres intermédiaires.
La haute direction doit combattre l’évidement du service extérieur et d’inverser la pourriture des valeurs fondamentales qui ont attiré nos professionnels au départ. L’APASE doit rester la voix de la base syndicale d’un service extérieur (où la culture de l’intégrité professionnelle ne peut être compromise sans causer des dommages durables à notre avenir). Reprenons le côté « professionel » de l’APASE et élaborons notre propre code de conduite, nos propres normes d’éthique, pour un XXI? siècle et un service extérieur basé sur les principes clairs. Je crois que nous pouvons tous et toutes convenir qu’un service extérieur qui craint ou est incapable de dire la vérité au pouvoir n’a rien de professionnel… 2 — Stuart Hushes
View the original scanned pages / Voir les pages numérisées →
Originally published in / Publié à l’origine dans bout de papier, Vol. 28, No. 1 (2014) — Spring 2014 // Printemps 2014, p. 3. Read the rest of this issue / Lire le reste de ce numéro →
